January 31, 2011

Here's an interesting graph on trends in interracial marriage 1980-2009. Interracial marriage rates for Asians and white Hispanic have been dropping over the last couple of decades as their communities grow more around them. It would have been helpful to break out figures for the large fraction of Hispanics who answer "Other" to the race question (e.g., darker mestizos tend to say that). It would also be helpful to have broken out Asians by native born and immigrant.

Here's my 1997 classic Is Love Colorblind? It used 1990 Census data. Not all that much has changed since then.

Interesting but pretty useless since the self-identification of both whites (middle easterners?) and Hispanics is pretty much an uncontrollable variable.

Also, from a demographic standpoint, marriages don't tell you much about the future of a society compared with who's having children with whom. I think some races are having children with others on an order of magnitude larger than what marriage certificates show.

Reading the comments at the NYT piece is fascinating. A strong anti-white undercurrent to them, plus a misreading of the data in the article and an overemphasis on the small sample group predictably highlighted in the piece.

96% of whites marry another white. Considering that a child with, say, three white and one East Asian grandparent will often be indistinguishable from a child with four white grandparents, this amounts to a negligible overall effect. And the rate has only increased by a small amount over the past 30 years, even with nonstop propaganda pieces like this one? It shows that race is something real, not merely a social construct.

The breathless tone of the piece and the comments (many written by biracial people) suggest that the future of America is biracial. Given the "rooftop effect" -- biracial children generally choose to mate with a partner of one or the other race -- the children of biracial people will generally find themselves 75% of one race and 25% of another, and choose the 75% race. That child is far more likely to marry within his 75% race than out of it, at which point you have kids that are 87% one race, and then the one great-grandparent's race is not visible any longer.

Also, it always amazed me how race is "a social construct" and "no big deal" in these propaganda pieces...and then they provide graphs, interviews, data etc that are about nothing but race!

Beyond Asian and Hispanic immigrant communities reaching a critical mass that encourages natural tribal inertia like intra-marriage, I think there are two other factors at work.

First, mainstream American "white" culture as envisioned by Hollywood and other MSM elites has become increasingly decadent in the past 30yrs. It is anti-family, anti-authority, anti-religious, anti-education, etc. This holds little instinctive appeal to many Hispanics and repulses many Asians.

Secondly, especially for Asians, a much larger percentage of pre-1965/1980 immigrants were elites in some way (economic, education, etc) compared to today where Asian immigration is much more mainstream. I propose that a 20-33% Asian Ivy or other elite university will have a higher intermarriage than a 20-33% community college as ethnicity is less important as elites selectively mate.

Third, the West is doing all it can to tear itself apart and in obvious relative decline. Marrying into "Whiteness" is not nearly as desirable as it as it was in my parents generation. Especially with the rise of Asian nations, Asian have a lot of self-confidence and pride that didn't exist when all of Asia was in ruins and over a century behind the west after WWII.

Finally, there are concrete benefits to not being White in America where "Whiteness" is evil, constantly denegrated and financially/legally rendered 2nd class citizens. Hispanics get a lot of government goodies. Asians suffer clear reverse discrimination, but get a few benes in uncommon fields and can preserve an identity for their kids apart from the mainstream decadence.

One more comment to help explain the intermarriage sex ratio disparity.

Men in many first world cultures over the world are seeking alternatives to the decadence of first world women. Women seem to be more vunerable to the toxicity of mass culture and madness of crowds than men as evince by such metrics of hours of TV viewed, voluntary fashion enslavement and grocery store gossip magazines.

Japanese men were seeking Korean and Taiwanese brides when I lived in Asia. Korean men are marrying Vietnamese women. Many American men have been seeking Asian or Eastern European women.

Not in every instance, but on average, I suspect that a SWPL/Chinese Woman couple will be much happier, stable, financially well-off, raise better adjusted kids than the reverse.

I'd like to know more about the rate of interracial dating, liaisons, and so on, outside the formal structure of marriage. Also, what's the number of mixed-race children being born, in and out of marriage, and what the mixes are. It seems I see a lot of mixed looking youth all over, some who I can figure out and others I can't. Does the mixing rate follow the marriage rate or does it veer off substantially?

The intermarriage numbers for Asians have dropped not only because the 'pool' of Asians have become bigger in the US (through immigration) but also the type of immigrants coming to the US.

1) Most of the Asian immigration to the US after the 1980's have been Chinese and Indian, who are more likely to practice endogamy.2) Economic immigrants rather than immigration through marriage. Did you know that over 100K warbrides (wives married to overseas military men) from Asia immigrated to the US following the end of WW2 to the end of the Korean War? This number doesnt even include the Vietnam War, marriages from miltary bases currently in the Asia like the Phillipines today, or mail order brides. Dont you think it funny how marriages to US servicemen from Japan and Korea basically have dried up after these countries have become wealthier?

In the UK black-white intermarriage/interbreeding is so common that the Afro-Caribbean ethny would likely be vanishing* into the white gene pool, were it not for massive African immigration. Afro-Caribbean and white-working-class culture have also been merging in many areas.

*It's true that black British women are less likely to have wite partners than black British men are, but still it's a much higher rate than in the US, and there is nothing like the US taboo against black woman/white man couples.

A lot of the Hispanics in the U.S. are third, fourth generation and assimilated, both racially and culturally. For example, Texicans are pretty assimilated group and have intermarried quite a bit. Same is true for a lot of Hispanics in New Mexico. Same is true for a lot of the earlier Hispanic immigrants in SoCal.

The Hispanic-white marriages I see usually feature assimilated Hispanics. Not really the newer migrants.

Indian-Americans use to have a really high interrmarriage rate (around 50 percent) in the second generation, but this appears to have fallen dramatically as their numbers have exploded.

Indians tend to have a religious and ethnic preference that causes them to inmarry. A lot of the women are under pressure to marry in the community, and arrange the marriage, so intermarriage rates are not that high for them.

"the children of biracial people will generally find themselves 75% of one race and 25% of another, and choose the 75% race. That child is far more likely to marry within his 75% race than out of it, at which point you have kids that are 87% one race, and then the one great-grandparent's race is not visible any longer."

That's what's happened with black/white mixes that everyone was so sure would change America once we got rid of "discrimination." It's been long enough now that I can see they won't. It'll just change a few blacks' appearance and make some of their descendants delusional about their racial background--I have heard any number of "blacks" with tan skin and green eyes claim that they are "all black" and not "mixed" because both parents are "black" yeah, sure. They really mean that. If only mulatto was still a respectable word. Short of some bio-hazard that kills us off, the white race isn't going anywhere, the world should be glad of that. Who else's countries would all the "immigrants" flock to? Japan?Sinapore? India?

As far as improving racial stock, if people of all races would just get off the junk food and sugar, we'd all look a lot a better. I was looking at some videos on Afghanis. What bone structure! I don't think they eat junk food. In fact, they probably don't eat much at all. And to judge from the appearance of some of them, they just may be a last outpost of proud whites who don't want to mix, oddly enough.

There's a failure of logic in Sailer's COLOR OF LOVE. He says women go for more masculine males while men go for more feminine females. Then, why is he puzzled by the fact that black women and asian men don't go together? Was he really puzzled or was he being facetitious? (ROTFL. The mental image of Timmy Nguyen and Thelma Jackson is just too funny.)

The Hispanic and the Asian category include many different races, hence the number of interracial marriages is much higher than it would seem. Also, there are mixed people who tend to choose only one side of their ancestry. If you identify on self-reporting, than reports on miscegenation become misleading.

Since the majority of sex and much of the cohabitation and most of the reproduction for some races are OUTSIDE of marriage why fixate on marriage rates?

The number of White women having mixed race babies is skyrocketing, especially among the young. And in a large percentage of these cases, I would say the vast majority where a black male is the father, the children are born out of wedlock.

Your fixation on marriage rates is old fashioned, silly and simply evades reality.

I know you love to count, number and quantify EVERYTHING so it's easier to get data when there are marriage statistics.

Finally, there are concrete benefits to not being White in America where "Whiteness" is evil, constantly denegrated and financially/legally rendered 2nd class citizens. Hispanics get a lot of government goodies. Asians suffer clear reverse discrimination, but get a few benes in uncommon fields and can preserve an identity for their kids apart from the mainstream decadence."

Hmm, I suspect some blondes have been thinking of using me to camouflage their kids. They would still be good looking and smart (and manly, fuck yeah!), but they would not be superwhite. Can't make this sound less drunk, lol

That's what's happened with black/white mixes that everyone was so sure would change America once we got rid of "discrimination." It's been long enough now that I can see they won't. It'll just change a few blacks' appearance and make some of their descendants delusional about their racial background--I have heard any number of "blacks" with tan skin and green eyes claim that they are "all black" and not "mixed" because both parents are "black" yeah, sure. They really mean that. If only mulatto was still a respectable word.

The real problem is gradual diminution of cognitive ability as the introgressed variants spread throughout the population and creep up the classes

Of course our rulers want this so that their own phenotype of generic dark vaguely caucasian will blend in, and that they will have no cognitive challengers

Too bad they divvy up the "Asian" category. I know, as a Chinese kid who grew up in 1980's small-town America with immigrant parents, first-hand about interracial marriage acceptance. My parents and their Chinese friends regularly exhorted us kids to marry other Chinese. Failing that, at least marry other Asians. It didn't always work, since we associated mostly with whites, but that was the ideal.

Contrast that with Filipinos and Koreans, where marrying whites was considered moving "up".

All this raises the issue of Mendelian genetics in my mind. I suppose I could research this notion on my own but maybe it's already been answered.

Gregor Mendel had two kinds of peas - let's call them black and white. Let's assume that the white peas were 100 cm tall and the black ones were 85 cm.

When they were crossbred he did not get all intermediates as you might have expected. He got some tall ones, some short ones and some intermediates.

Are the products of all these mixed marriages also Mendelian?

IQ is widely agreed to be poly-genetic. But is there any insight to be gained into the number of base pairs involved from an examination of the progeny? Simple examination of the means wouldn't show much but if the number of genes is small I think we might have a bi-modal distribution with high kurtosis.

dores:"I was looking at some videos on Afghanis. What bone structure! I don't think they eat junk food. In fact, they probably don't eat much at all. And to judge from the appearance of some of them, they just may be a last outpost of proud whites who don't want to mix, oddly enough."

The Pashtun are a good-looking bunch, yup, and seem the most pure-Caucasian in the region. They're also insanely violent, perhaps not coincidentally.

Among my Pakistani students, I've noticed that the Pashtun seem to be the smartest, too.

"Contrast that with Filipinos and Koreans, where marrying whites was considered moving "up"."

My impression is that middle-class Koreans are as averse to intermarriage with caucasians as other Eastern Asians - mail-order brides who marry G.I.'s being the exception, as they generally hail from the bottom of the social totem pole.

"Your fixation on marriage rates is old fashioned, silly and simply evades reality. I know you love to count, number and quantify EVERYTHING so it's easier to get data when there are marriage statistics."

So, does anybody have an alternative source of data for total couples or babies born or whatever?

"Women seem to be more vunerable to the toxicity of mass culture and madness of crowds than men as evince by such metrics of hours of TV viewed, voluntary fashion enslavement and grocery store gossip magazines."

Oh, please. Men spend 6 hours every Sunday plus 3 hours Monday, and 3 more Thursday nights, watching professional football. Then afterwards, they sit in rapt attention reliving it all by gawping at Sports Wrap, plus who knows how many hours at the water cooler gossiping about who's going to win the Superbowl. And if it's not football season, well, worry about who'll win the pennant / World Series in baseball this year and who'll make it to Final Four in basketball. And all of this spirited debate, even barfights, accomplishes what, exactly?

Talk about madness of crowds.

And who says fashion enslavement is voluntary? We have to compete with each other to get the attention of YOU guys.

Difference Maker:The real problem is gradual diminution of cognitive ability as the introgressed variants spread throughout the population and creep up the classes...

I'm a romantic, and prefer to believe in freedom of the will, but, like The Derb, you have to be at least willing to consider the possiblity that there is a genetic propensity for morality, as well [because there sure as heck is a genetic propensity for personality, and it is very difficult to separate the personal from the moral].

And if there is such a propensity, then we need to be dadgum certain that we are breeding into our progeny the morality of our ancestors, and not the amorality or the immorality of "their" ancestors.

And who says fashion enslavement is voluntary? We have to compete with each other to get the attention of YOU guys.

It's not only watching TV (which women still prefer over guys), but what you watch. Like magazines and talk shows, the most inane TV shows are social competitiveness and herd-like shows like the Real Housewives of X, Kardashians, etc.

Men are competitive, tribal and aggressive so sports tap into that, but that does not equate with seeking conformity and acceptance like women do via fashion, style, manners, class, etc.

And women are into fashion primarily to outdo each other as most men wouldn't know the difference between a $20 and $200 dollar purse or pair of shoes. Men care about a woman's age, body and face which fashion cannot hide (see Sarah Jessica Parker).

As another measure of individuality, non-conformity, iconoclast behavior, which sex has far more:

* groundbreaking artists, writers, architects, scientists, etc

* entrepreneurs

* criminals and law breakers

You get the picture.

Women are great in their own ways, but they are particularly susceptible to external influences - especially from our vacuous mass Western culture.

Men are mostly a non-factor in terms of preserving ethnic cohesion. Only the Chinese, Indian and Jewish women seem racialist enough to actively fight against interracial marriage with their children. In smaller enclaves and scales, Middle Eastern Christians, Koreans and others groups have women who fight the general drift towards intermarriage too.

"So, does anybody have an alternative source of data for total couples or babies born or whatever?"

Following the links, it looks like the researchers at the Pew Research Center (who wrote the report used in the New York Times article) got their data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey microdata files on the IPUMS-USA database:

http://www.ipums.org/

The data on the site is available free of charge, but does require registration, including a description of the project for which the data is being used.

Based on the descriptions given on the site, it looks like all of the statistical data gathered by the Census Bureau through the decennial census & ACS is available, although I have to admit that I have never registered and have not seen the information available.

Using data from the 2000 Census and the American Community Survey through 2009, it should be possible to calculate the racial statistics of unmarried cohabitating couples (who report "unmarried partner" as their relationship on their census form) as well as the number of children whose reported race is different from that of their mother (if the mother & children both live in the same household).

The information exists, although it would presumably require a great deal of time & effort to sift through the data.

While Real Housewives is appalling, at least it'll make for fodder for some future historian to marvel in horror at how far our society has fallen.

But any random football game? Who cares? Who cares who wins the Superbowl this year? They'll just run and throw the ball up and down the field again next year, again, anyway. The long-term significance of it all is what, exactly?

None. But those not-inane, non-decadent fellas sure spend a whole lot of their allotted hours on this earth fretting about it.

****

Women are conformist? What? Men aren't?

Please. The pro football team a man professes to be a fan of is just as much about conformity and acceptance as any teen girl demanding the must-have latest style of overpriced brand named bluejeans.

*****

And, 'bout those $200 Gucci handbags? The exact parallel to the status seeking and approval of women with their clothes is men with their cars. And cars cost a wee bit more, at that. Oh, and sporting Rolex watches is another example of the status-whoring men do. And wearing team jerseys, which are 4X the price of a plain jersey bought at Sears. And what do you get for 4x the money? Screenprinting.

At least it could be argued the Gucci bags might (possibly) be worth the money if, being made of exceptional quality leather, they last for decades.

Women only care about such things as Rolexes on men as a status-signaller of money (hence ability to provide). And plenty of men with money CERTAINLY know if the woman is carrying a Gucci or a Jaclyn Smith Original from Kmart bought on blue-light special. And since Mr. Rich knows he's going to have to introduce his lady at the office party, Walmart-clad Bubba-ettes aren't going to be getting any wedding rings from him.

So....women dress for success. Always have, because it's what works to catch a rich husband.

So, does anybody have an alternative source of data for total couples or babies born or whatever?

There are three major sources for information about children in this country, and they all give subtly different numbers from one another.

1) The Census Bureau gives us the Statistical Abstract, and the 2011 edition, with 2009 data, was just posted on January 6th. See Section 1, Population, and then look at e.g. Table 9 [page 13], Table 10 [page 14], etc.

2) The CDC publishes numbers on births which come from the states [as gathered from hospital data and state birth certificates]. The Final Data for 2008 was just released in December, but unfortunately the CDC takes any "multiple-race" data which it receives and smashes it down into "the single-race categories of the 1977 OMB standards for comparability". You could try to tease some out numbers by comparing the race of the mothers [Table 1, PDF page 72] and the race of the fathers [Table 17, PDF page 93], but it might involve a little guesswork.

3) The states keep detailed racial statistics on the children enrolled in the public schools [although it will probably not be a good reflection of the children enrolled in the private schools or the children who are homeschooled]. For instance, if you go to the data for the California STAR, then you can click around and eventually see things like the results for e.g. Ethnicity -- Two or More Races on the 2010 CST.

PS: There is someone out there [maybe at UCLA?] who collects and sells the raw hospital data for all of the USA, but I have heard that you have to be a university researcher to get it, and even then it is said to be VERY expensive.

Said by the guy who in his first post claimed First-world (i.e., White) men are actively looking for non-First-world (i.e, non-White) wives.

So, which is it?

Also, (White) women are inane with their tv watching, but the inane televised football watching men do isn't inane because men are tribalistic, which makes it profound, (although, note, women's tribalistic conformity as expressed through the shows they watch is NOT profound, but inane)but then you flip and insist men are not conformist tribalists, after all, but individualistic non-conformists.

So, which is it?

Basically, dude, your posts, which ping-pong incoherently from one view to the diametric opposite and back again, are really only consistent in one respect and can be summed up as: White guys, yay, White gals, yuck.

Since you can't have a White people without White women, and since lots of impressionable young, single guys read iSteve and just may take your anti-White-women hooey to heart, YOU are anti-White.

Old link posted before from the Washington Post in 1998 on Asian native born v. immigrant outmarriage by gender.

"In addition, 36 percent of young Asian Pacific American men born in the United States marry white women, and 45 percent of U.S.-born Asian Pacific American women took white husbands."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/dec98/melt29.htm

The Japanese are mostly American born and the outmarriage rate of men and women look equally high based on my encounters. The difference in outmarriage between Asian immigrant men and women can be accounted for by cultural differences. White men are willing to tolerate fresh off the boat women as long as they are attractive. White women will not tolerate men who they can't connect with.

Colorblind is bogus... Such individuals seek race. Racism means the distinction and preservation; or the difference of race. The commie program to upset the west and/or white surpremacy is a factor as well. Many of these individuals are also wiggers and being a negrophile in such a way surely has its pathology. I am not a phobe, phile nor indifferent. If i find a negress that i marry--i will have mulatto children--not postracial. Mestizoes are the majority south of the U.S., yet where is socialist ideolgy's definition there?

Your posts also reminded me that women are generally more emotional, insecure and are less numerate than men :0 But that is part of the appeal of women for men when they aren't driving us crazy.

Are you seriously proposing that women are exactly equal to men on the conformist <---> iconoclast spectrum? Would you also join the feminist faculty at Harvard in denouncing Larry Summers because he noted an un-PC difference between women and men?

You need to think statistically instead of via anecdotes. The masses in the middle of both sexes do silly things like waste time watching and buying silly things.

Although both sexes may have some component of comformity, it tends to play a larger part for women. Many psychology studies have shown that women are more social, emotionally attuned to others and have a stronger desire for acceptance and harmony with others than men.

The greater non-comformity of men becomes especially pronounced at the extreme tails of behavioral distributions. Again, ask yourself what is the male:female ratio of:

* groundbreaking artists, writers, architects, scientists, etc

* entrepreneurs, risk takers

* The alpha/leader nerds, geeks, freaks, goths, hippies and others who reject social norms (vs the followers in these groups)

The Americans, Koreans, Japanese, men pursuing brides from more traditional foreign cultures are another example of the curve tail which you confuse with averages. The context in which this example was raised makes this a valid point. It also shows the extremes and risks male outliers will endure in rejecting the inertia of anti-male PC norms of their own cultures.

Gucci bags and rolex watches? Maybe a concern for the salesmen of Glen Garry Glen Ross.

If a woman is age-adjusted hot and well-heeled a simple black dress will make her more than presentable in any respectable company.

""Considering that a child with, say, three white and one East Asian grandparent will often be indistinguishable from a child with four white grandparents..."

No, sorry. European genetics are recessive and it is very easy to detect admixture, if you aren't willingly blind. Call me a "Stormfronter" if you want, whatever that means.

Interracial marriage is a terrible thing. Is a future of raceless, cultureless gray people appealing to anyone who appreciates diversity?""

I can tell you from experience with my own family that 1/4 Asian people are indistinguishable from whites. I suppose if someone told you ahead of time and you looked really hard you could tell. But with everyday interaction no white person could tell.

By the way, it takes the worst sort of sick racist that would have a problem accepting a 1/4 Asian person as white. I mean, what kind of threat would they pose?

"The Pashtun are a good-looking bunch, yup, and seem the most pure-Caucasian in the region. They're also insanely violent, perhaps not coincidentally."

Pashtuns are also noted for liking boys--the men I mean. But that may just be overstated by their adversairies. From time immemorial, Official Enemies are always accused of that sort of thing. That, and eating people.

Actually I was thinking of the Nuristani, who were forcably converted to Islam around 1890. Before that they had followed some sort of shaministic pagan religion and had expressed interest in Christianity--maybe they had met missionaries. Well, the Shah of Someplace summoned his army to go convert them posthaste (you wonder what took them so long), after which the infidels were renamed "Nuristani" meaning land of light--the Light of Islam.The rumors that the Nuris were descendants of Alex the Great are not substantiated as their language is related to old Sanskrit, not Greek, and their traditional garb and customs bear no resemblance to Greece at any time in its history. In fact, it looks as if the gene flow was not FROM Europe or other northern area, to Afghanistan-Nuristan, but the other way around, and some Euro populations came from this region. That's the latest research anyway. And some of those people do look more Nordic than most Europeans. Some of the photos look like western NGO's had their kids pose in costume. But no, they were native children.

""the children of biracial people will generally find themselves 75% of one race and 25% of another, and choose the 75% race. That child is far more likely to marry within his 75% race than out of it, at which point you have kids that are 87% one race, and then the one great-grandparent's race is not visible any longer."

yep.

this is why africans in the US are getting more european and turning into a sort of hybrid group. mulattos usually date africans, so the african group is slowly and steadily becoming more european.

plus europeans and africans don't date that much anyway in the US, so the effect is mitigated even more. when living together, these two groups will definitely not merge into one group, even after centuries of total sexual freedom.

slapping east asians and europeans together though is a lot different. it's possible they might merge over a few centuries of time. you can already see this in canada and some US cities.

i still don't think there are nearly as many mestizos dating other people as the official statistics say. i stick with my original take on the matter. lots of those "interracial" unions in the statistics are just two mestizos except one of the people marked "white" on the form.

1/4 asian? you can't tell if some half asians are mixed race. i know lots of half asians that are regularly assumed to be "just white". the only visual cue most people use is skin folds. if they are subtle or not there at all, you won't know. i've noticed this over and over. it's the only thing most people use to determine what category they put someone in mentally. somebody could be totally european in every other feature - physical build, musculature, fat distribution, nose, jaw, bone structure - in other words not asian at all - but some slanted skin around their eyes and they become "asian".

filipinos don't have a prominent skin fold, and half filipinos, you'll just never know most of the time. some half japanese people are the same. a segment of full blooded japanese people don't have super prominent skin folds, and in some mixed race kids they aren't expressed.

i've noticed the same thing for half africans. it's instantly recognizable that they don't look like their african parent, but somewhere in between both their parents, and that you could line up 10 africans and easily pick out the mixed race person every time. again, this had to be about visual cues, with 1 or 2 features putting a person in the "african" category and nothing else mattering, because the european genes are expressed and immediately apparent in mulattos.

mestizos become "just white" rather rapidly since there are no group specific visual cues to distinguish them as "not european". i noticed this when i used to date mexican women. lots of their relatives were mixed race but you wouldn't know. especially once the marker of a spanish name is erased with some other kind of name and you have some mestizo kid named "Ryan Connor" or whatever and he's just plain european looking. i'm certain this lack of a unique, unmistakable visual cue between europeans and american indians, is what leads to a really fluid group categorization among mestizos.

"Are you seriously proposing that women are exactly equal to men on the conformist <---> iconoclast spectrum?"

Nah.

But from the tone of what you've posted, sounds like YOU think women are all-conforming and men are totally non-conforming, as opposed to the reality that most women AND men fall smack in the central portion of the inanity bell curve.

I'm not the one failing to look at averages -- you are.

"If a woman is age-adjusted hot and well-heeled a simple black dress will make her more than presentable in any respectable company."

Note your own words: "well-heeled." Those words are the very essence of spending $$$$$$$ on shoes (and $200 bags to match).

"Again, ask yourself what is the male:female ratio of....." The explanation for iconoclasm is not X vs. Y chromosome, but IQ.

Men have a wider IQ distribution than women. Which means, yes, at the extreme tails men outnumber women. (It also means that men outnumber women among the mentally retarded who will spend their lives as a burden upon the rest of us, innovating nothing, not even a new children's book, but, shrug, let's not talk about that aspect of the bell curve.)

But the extreme tails are only a tiny fraction of the population in absolute numbers, so extremely innovative men are far less than 2% of all men.Most men are average IQ, same as most women.

Average-IQ people, of both genders, which encompasses the vast bulk of humanity, spend too much leisure time watching inane shows. It's a sad state we as a people have fallen to.

But, what are YOU doing about it? Telling average or above average young White men that he oughta be chasing yellow tail, because White women are inane (while glossing over or missing noticing completely the equivalent inanity of men).

You are anti-White.

In fact, it could even be said that you are anti-White male, because, under the guise of helping White guys to find a mate by choosing yellow, you encourage young White men to race mix; thereby causing their sons to be mixed. So you are demonstrating your disgust for White men by working to see there are fewer of them in the next generation.

And even on a smaller scale, since so many of our best and brightest young men are being urged by the likes of Hapa to race-mix, because there are few of them it won't take much until the great bulk of the middle suffers the loss of its natural aristocracy, as that high-IQ natural-aristocracy cohort will have become Other.

"The same kind who think that people from the Caucasus region (thus inherently Caucasian) aren't white."

The Caucuses are somewhere in between Europe and the Middle East culturally and genetically. The people who live there behave very differently from Europeans, especially Northwest Europeans. We have every reason to be aware of these differences.

It's interesting that you as Jew feel it's your job to tell white people who they should accept into their in group. Does that go both ways? Can I demand that Arabs be considered Jews?

But, what are YOU doing about it? Telling average or above average young White men that he oughta be chasing yellow tail, because White women are inane (while glossing over or missing noticing completely the equivalent inanity of men).

You are anti-White.

My mistake. I should've used the term "well-bred" instead of "well-heeled". I meant education, sophistication and social graces.

Most of the wealthy people I know who wear jewelry or Gucci are either insecure nouveaux riches or striving middle/lower class. The comfortably rich, especially multi-generational, elevate their game to non-material status markers entwined with a person's education, upbringing, and bearing.

Reading comprehension. I never told anyone to do anything (called a "call to action" in adversting). I simply noted a trend among some 1st world men in response to growing their anti-male anti-marriage PC culture.

The biggest advocate of dating foreign women is Roissy who extols the virtues of white Eastern European (not Asian) women. I don't know if that makes you feel better as a racialist or worse as an American woman. He's extreme but vents some frustrations American men face with dating and marriage.

I don't care if Whites, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics or Jews are focused on marrying within their own ethnic or religious group or not so I'm not anti-anything. But neither am I a racialist white as you mistakenly expect everyone here to be.

As a Hapa (look it up) raised in the US, I most identify first with white and then Asian culture. I'm never taken for anything but white and most of my kids, nieces, and nephews pass as Nordic.

Still, I have to emphasize the Asian culture to my kids and use it as a bulwark against the self-destructive inanity of American "white" mainstream culture.

1) Approximately 225K Asian immigrants were accepted in the US as wives from 1950 - 1979

75K Japanese immigrants were accepted in the US as wives from 1950 - 197943K Korean immigrants were accepted in the US as wives from 1950 - 197973K Philipine immigrants were accepted in the US as wives from 1950 - 1979

The vast majority of the above marriages of Asian women were to US servicemen. Were some of these marriages were for love? I am sure there were as much as you can love a person who you cannot communicate with as I am willing to wager that all (and I do mean all) of these Asian wives spoke little to no English. Almost all of these marriages to US servicemen were for economic and family reasons.

2) Approximately 925K Asian immigrants were accepted in the US as wives from 1980 - 2003

It gets harder to differentiate between marriages to US servicemen, mail order brides, or Asian male US immigrants going back to their home countries for wives with immigration numbers after 1980.

The total Asian female/White male marriages for the last census in 2000 was about 400k marriages. I cannot tell exactly how many of these marriages were to US servicemen/mail-order brides but why does Mr. Sailer - in his Colorblind analysis - ignore the fact that a large portion of these marriages were to US servicemen or mail-order brides. In addition the term 'Asian' is all encompassing term in the US which includes Southeast Asians like Filipinos/Thais and South Asians like Indians/Pakistanis.

When you look at US born Asian males and US born Asian females, the intermarriage gender gap closes significantly. But I guess Mr Sailer likes to ignore these facts and continue with whatever conclusions he has already made up in his mind.

Men are competitive, tribal and aggressive so sports tap into that, but that does not equate with seeking conformity and acceptance like women do via fashion, style, manners, class, etc.

You must have been homeschooled.

And you come from the liberal MSM school of sophism and personal attacks. If I don't like an idea then I'll demand impossible standards of proof before I'll ever believe my lying eyes.

Unless you can prove to me there is zero overlap between men and women in terms of conformity, they must be identical. Unless you can identify every underlying genetic and environmental factor along with mechanisms contributing to intelligence with 100% predictability, there is 0 genetic contribution to intelligence.

After reviewing the comments i just wanted to suggest that 'white' can be a cultural term. Of wich some 'whites' do not fit the definition, like those with no magna carta/common law. At the same time w.a.s.p.ishness is a caricatured stereotype and not always an inherent ethnic trait. Also, whites tend to affirm an individual autonomy and are keen of the difference within the 'white' spectrum. That is what seperates us Whites from non-whites: are autonomy.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.